The law is specifically written so that she has to authorize the prosecution. It's not "respecting the separation of powers" to prosecute something when it's in your sole discretion to prosecute it.
If the law did not normally require executive decisions it would be different.
There's the equivalent paragraph for regular people and Erdogan also demande prosecution under that provision. The primary difference is a slightly lower maximum sentence. That paragraph does not require government authorization. In practice, this decision does make little difference. It's a political statement.
Essentially, this has nothing to do with "regarding separation of powers", since the law in question requires "und die Bundesregierung die Ermächtigung zur Strafverfolgung erteilt", i.e. "that the federal government gives the courts authority to prosecute". Without order to prosecute from the executive, the judiciary would have no legal grounds.
It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she would have denied this authority.
> It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she would have denied this authority.
You're technically absolutely correct, but essentially it is about separation of powers. That is also the public perception.
Strategically and diplomatically it would be the wrong move to deny it - that can only backfire in a much worse way than it does now. This will all blow over.
Altough, I'm not so sure about the other suit which Erdogan placed using his german attorney.
When a law requires a government to give permission, it is implied that the decision is not arbitrary, but rather the result of a conscious effort to honor that law.
Requiring permission to prosecute doesn't mean the government can do what it wants in this case. That law is meant to be part of the respect that is given to honest diplomatic partners. At least in the diplomatic fiction, this is the case.
Denying that respect would cast doubt on the numerous treaties between the EU, Germany and Turkey, including NATO membership. Something Germany can ill afford currently.
Well, it's current law and they can't just repeal the law in a few days. Sitting it out is not an option with such a publicly visible case.
The only thing which bothers me is that it is going to be effective only starting 2018. In the current situation, they'd have a huge majority in the parliament.
They certainly could repeal the law in a few days, four days should be the minimum if I remember correctly. (And yes, there have been laws introduced to parliament and passed that fast before.)
Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is obsolete and they will void it.